The Champagne Murders (1967) User Reviews

A rather standard whodunit

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 11 February 2021]

Anthony Perkins plays an is-he-crazy or is-he-not post Norman Bates role and Maurice Ronet plays the French version of that same character. They were like twins...but were they killers?

What I liked about this movie was the dual role played by French actress Stephane Audran. With a little black wig, brown contact lenses and buck teeth, she played the mousy secretary Jacqueline. With her natural blonde hair and blue eyes she played seductress Lydia.

Nobody else in the cast was very effective except for Audran and it was interesting to see her as a lovesick chick-on-the-side to the married Perkins, and as the faithful, bland secretary who gratefully took the orders of her mistress, Perkins' wife.

The final scene was staged uniquely by director Claude Chabrol and it was very effective. As Ronet, Perkins and Audran all fight for a gun to kill each other for a variety of reasons, the camera pulls away from inside the red-carpeted bedroom where the three are wrestling around. The camera continues to pull away until just a small red square with the three writhing bodies is center-stage around a black border that just gets bigger and bigger. Then the Universal logo appears and that's the end.

You don't find out who won the fight and it makes for a great ending to, as I said. a pretty standard "who-is-the-killer" movie. It's worth watching for Audran's performance, though small in number of scenes; and for that last fighting shot.

"Try to remember the motto:"The first will be last and the lastor something like that."

[morrison-dylan-fan · 7/10 · 23 June 2016]

Gathering up works from auteur film maker Claude Chabrol,I spotted a title starring Anthony Perkins. With Chabrol being very open about his inspiration from the "Master of Suspense" I decided that it was time to see Chabrol meet the psycho.

View on the film:

Backed by Universal studios, (which led to a French and English version both being shot) director Claude Chabrol & cinematographer Jean Rabier fizz up the lavish lifestyles of Paul and Christopher,as stylish tracking shots pull back to reveal the colourful surroundings when the murders "pop."

Closing in on Wagner's fractured mind,Chabrol locks in with elegant,tightly held close-ups which heat up a tough edge Film Noir atmosphere,which is lit up by Wagner's attempts to unscramble his memories.

Kicking off with a car crash that sends Wagner into a whirl,the screenplay by Claude Brulé/ Derek Prouse/ William Benjamin & Paul Gégauff delicately builds up the fractures between Wagner,Christopher and Christine Belling,with Wagner's blunt outbursts cutting him off as a Film Noir loner.

Splashing the murders against the screen,the writers wonderfully press Wagner's anxiety down on the viewer,by making the viewer having to gather the loose reflections of Wagner's interactions with the victims, until the superb final shot "pulls back" to unveil the full puzzle.

Carrying a sly grin on his face, Anthony Perkins gives a great performance as Christopher,whose calm, collected business manner Perkins peels away to uncover a ruthless, calculating bite.

Pushed to put the cork back in the bottle by the gorgeous Yvonne Furneaux's femme fatale , Maurice Ronet gives an excellent performance as Paul Wagner. Covering Wagner in Noir shakes of disbelief,Ronet digs his nails into the tortured doubt of Wagner,as the murder victims get covered in champagne.

THE CHAMPAGNE MURDERS {Edited U.S. Version} (Claude Chabrol, 1967) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 23 June 2010]

Despite the mixed reception it enjoys among both critics and fans of the director, this film can now be seen to have been the one to virtually inaugurate Chabrol's major period; it was actually made in conjunction with Universal, a studio with which his idol Alfred Hitchcock was still tied at the time and, to further stress that connection, he utilized one of the stars from the latter's recent work (Anthony Perkins in the first of two pictures he did for the French director). This co-production arrangement – which even saw eminent American film critic Derek Prouse and character actor Henry Jones figuring among the writers and supporting cast respectively! – resulted in two separate versions: the English-language one running 98 minutes and the French being slightly longer at either 107 or 111, depending on the sources. Unfortunately, the former seems to be the more readily available cut which, incidentally, also fails to give credit to Chabrol's regular scribe Paul Gegauff for his contribution to the clever screenplay!

Though Chabrol had previously dabbled in the thriller genre (including one in color, WEB OF PASSION [1959] that would make for a perfect thematic companion piece), this stylish film – which also brought on a sudden blossoming of his then-wife Stephane Audran's talents, in what initially appears to be a dual role – set him out as European cinema's foremost purveyor of folies bourgeoises (to cite a later, albeit much maligned, title I have been unable to track down for this comprehensive tribute). Even so, this first 'mature' attempt proves a bit uneasy as a whole – owing, in part, to the language barrier but, also, the strained decadent milieu at its core (to get an inkling of the film's overall effect, if Hitchcock had made LA DOLCE VITA [1960], it would have looked something like this!). In fact, the psychological aspect of the narrative (the hero suffers a head injury and undergoes repeated shock treatment, which makes him seemingly prone to blackouts) is rather downplayed in favor of some dreary business dealings which, eventually, descend into blackmail and murder.

With the protagonist made to be an alcoholic playboy – I particularly enjoyed the Bunuel in-joke where the inebriated hero smashes a TV set just as a screening of LA MORT EN CE JARDIN (1956) is about to start! – it was inevitable that Maurice Ronet, who had virtually cornered that particular market ever since playing the suicidal lead in Louis Malle's LE FEU FOLLET (1963), would assume that role here and he went on to win a Spanish acting award for his sterling efforts. In retrospect, given his pedigree, one would have expected Perkins to be the victim of any potential conspiracy but he emerges a schemer here instead…which he does very well, mind you, except that in the last sequence we realize he had an accomplice all along who is even more ruthless than he is!

Actually, the revelation with respect to the latter comes across just as 'shocking' as the one at the climax of Agatha Christie's "Witness For The Prosecution" (superbly filmed by Billy Wilder in 1957); that said, death and disguise also come into play at the finale of Chabrol's subsequent release, LES BICHES (1968; also with Audran). Then again, such an audacious open-ended closing shot as one finds here could hardly have been anticipated!

Apart from Audran – not to mention a glossy look (courtesy of the ubiquitous Jean Rabier) which was soon to become a trademark of the Chabrol style – the film boasts a number of other attractive females (including Yvonne Furneaux as Perkins' wife, whose lust for power proves her undoing, Catherine Sola as Ronet's tennis partner and, both as unwitting pawns in the game of murder, voluptuous artist Suzanne Lloyd and Christa Lang, who had previously worked with Chabrol three years earlier in his espionage pastiche THE TIGER LIKES FRESH MEAT and would go on to marry iconoclastic American film-maker Samuel Fuller).

My first Claude Chabrol film.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 2 January 2021]

French actor Maurice Ronet ("Purple Noon") is front and centre here as Paul Wagner, a free-spirited playboy. He is pressured by Christine Belling (Yvonne Furneaux, "Repulsion"), the wife of his good friend Christopher Belling (Anthony Perkins of "Psycho" fame), to sell his champagne business to American interests. (Represented by character actors Henry Jones ("The Bad Seed") and George Skaff ("Topaz").) But complicating matters is the fact that after Paul emerges from drunken stupors, dead female bodies are found in his vicinity. Since he hasn't been quite right since an incident in the films' opening business, he worries that he's losing his mind once again.

Critics weren't overly kind to this psychological thriller from French filmmaker Claude Chabrol, feeling that the plot was simply too convoluted. But, in truth, it's not all *that* complex, and it does have surprises in store for the viewer, including the ultimate identity of the killer, revealed to be a VERY ruthless sort. The film is extremely well shot in Technovision by Jean Rabier, and features a pleasant score by Pierre Jansen. It's noteworthy for being rather irreverent, and Chabrol gets an uncharacteristic, amusingly comic turn out of Perkins. This is the loosest that this viewer has ever seen the actor. Ronet, playing the one character in "The Champagne Murders" worthy of some sympathy, does a very effective job, but the film truly belongs to a fantastic Stephane Audran ("Babette's Feast") as the secretary.

Commendably, Chabrol may end this with the expected confrontation between principal characters, but dares to prevent the audience from feeling total satisfaction by ending the film without a true resolution.

Written by American film critic Derek Prouse and French screenwriter Claude Brule ("Barbarella"), based on an idea by William Benjamin; the dialogue for the French-language version was scripted by Paul Gegauff. This was the first of two pictures that Perkins acted in for Chabrol; the second was "Ten Days Wonder".

Seven out of 10.

Once things do get going there are some great scenes

[christopher-underwood · 7/10 · 25 January 2014]

This is not really an early Chabrol who had already been making films for over fifteen years but it does come just before he fully got into his stride and his golden period began with Le Boucher. Fascinating here to see Anthony Perkins with Maurice Ronet and the lovely Stephane Audran, not sure if he knew English or was dubbed but he looks fine. Trouble here is that Chabrol takes forever setting this up and we have to spend what seems an interminable amount of time as the rich are seen to party pathetically with their business transactions forever hovering. Once things do get going there are some great scenes and we struggle to make out who is doing what and for why. Could have done with some of that cinematic style early on but certainly worth a watch for the second half. Apparently referenced in Kill Bill 1 and 2 and I'm guessing that it is the final overhead scene shot in retreating fashion that could Tarantino's eye.

Scandal indeed!

[dbdumonteil · 4/10 · 28 September 2005]

CONTAINS A BIG SPOILER Chabrol's transitional period was coming to an end.His

golden era was about to begin,and would culminate two years later with "le boucher".But the transitional period is still here in 1967.

"Le scandale" is nothing short of rubbish.The first hour is meandering and dragging on and on and on:you're going to tell me it's Claude Chabrol 's usual disgust for the bourgeoisie.It would work the following year in "la femme infidele" when Chabrol began with a fly on the wall account of the daily life of those wealthy people.It does not here .Anthony Perkins and Maurice Ronet are wasted and Yvonne Furneaux is undistinguished.Stephane Audran is here too and with her ,comes my big spoiler :so stop reading now if you have not seen the flick (but haven't you got a better way of spending your time anyway?).Anyone who knows Chabrol's works has seen Audran in a lot of films;and you realize that Jacqueline is a Stephane Audran made look ugly ,and the German hostess is the real sexy Audran.When the movie was made,Audran was hardly known in France and the audience could be fooled.No longer.

Chabrol ,in the second part,tried to create suspense and fear ,by suggesting Ronet was going nuts.But it's too late and the ending recalls some of those Joan Crawford extravaganzas ,the likes of "straight jacket" except that you had a good laugh in Castle's movie .Not in Chabrol's dud.

Gastronomist Chabrol fills his quota of good food.Here they treat themselves to some delicious kidneys (not hot enough,one of the guests complains.)

Effective psychological thriller

[gridoon2024 · 7/10 · 11 October 2014]

This early Claude Chabrol thriller is rarely seen, but it's just as good as most of his later, more widely acclaimed films. The beginning is a little too languid (as one character puts it, their job is "to do nothing with distinction"), but once the first murder occurs, the film transforms into a gripping, Hitchcockian mystery. Chabrol is collaborating with his regular cinematographer and composer, so the photography and the music are up to his usual high standards. There are some stunningly beautiful women (Stephane Audran in red lingerie is worth the price of admission by herself....and why is Suzanne Lloyd so little-known?), and an equally stunning plot twist. But you must also be prepared for one of the strangest, most open-ended final shots you will ever see! *** out of 4.

Snafu, Fubar, and Fiasco walk into a bar

[enoughtoil · 1/10 · 28 October 2017]

Spoiler alert: this review is all spoilers. But this movie is so bad that I don't think it's possible to spoil it any further. A reviewer who has praised the movie asserts that the Anthony Perkins character, Christopher, is in cahoots with the character, or rather characters, played by Stéphane Audran: Audran is Jacqueline when disguised as Christopher's mousy maid and she is the flashy Lydia when not in disguise. Lydia commits a bunch of murders and tries to pin them on Christopher's friend, the character named Paul who is played by Maurice Ronet. Lydia's plan is to benefit financially from the deaths of her murder victims and then live happily ever after with Christopher (why the beautiful and intelligent, albeit ruthless, Lydia would kill in order to be with a loser like Christopher is beyond my comprehension). But if Christopher is in on Lydia's plan, then the scene where he makes a play for Jacqueline and she rejects him makes no sense. Perhaps he could be in cahoots only with Lydia, not realizing that she is also Jacqueline, but that would mean that all it takes for a woman to deceive Christopher is not much more than her wearing of a wig. Christopher's being in cahoots with Lydia would also mean that he would be delighted when he learns that his wife, Christine, played by Yvonne Furneaux, has been murdered, when in fact he is distraught. The entire movie makes very little sense. With the partial exception of Christine, all the main characters are unprincipled and obnoxious people, so it is difficult to have much sympathy for any of them.

Uneven early Claude Chabrol thriller

[Red-Barracuda · 6/10 · 8 March 2018]

This was a movie that French director Claude Chabrol made just before the period considered his golden era in which he knocked out a number of excellent dramatic thrillers. It would only be fair to say that with this one he hadn't quite nailed the formula, as while it has a complex plot, it ultimately doesn't add up to all that much by the end. The story features a young couple who try to convince, Paul Wagner, the mentally unstable owner of a respected champagne business to sell his company to another corporation. Matters are complicated when on a trip to Germany, a girl Wagner meets is murdered while he experiences a blackout, while back in France the same thing happens once again. These events are used as leverage to blackmail him into giving up his company.

It's got to be said that this one takes a while to get going. It begins with a scene involving a gang attack, which kind of sits a bit awkwardly in the story, and it is only alluded to later on but left essentially adrift from everything else. After this, we watch some rich types involve themselves in a series of vaguely interesting activities but it is really only once the first murder finally occurs that the story becomes interesting. It sort of gets by after that but you would be hard pushed to say by the end that it was anything too out of the ordinary or inspired. Still, any film that features the incredibly alluring Stéphane Audran gets plus points from me basically from the get-go, and while she does have an admittedly smaller role than she would have in Chabrol's later films, it is an important one. Frankly, Audran was a huge reason that many of the films from Chabrol's golden era were so good and in this instance, even with limited screen-time she is still head and shoulders above everybody else. There was a neat disguise reveal later on which had me fooled and the movie does end on a commendably strange final shot. Ultimately, this is certainly worth a watch if you like Chabrol or Audran, although it is for sure one of their lesser collaborations.

Hard to get into

[edgeofreality · 11 March 2021]

Curiously uninvolving despite fine cast and several memorable scenes of bourgeois grotesquerie accompanied by vaguely Hitchcockian touches. The English dubbing didn't help.